Skip to main content

Senator Clinton Releases Energy Policy Plan

In a speech yesterday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Senator Hillary Clinton laid out her energy policy for her presidential campaign. Here's the passage on nuclear energy (PDF):
Addressing Nuclear Power: Hillary believes that energy efficiency and renewables are better options for addressing global warming and meeting our future power needs, because of significant unresolved concerns about the cost of producing nuclear power, the safety of operating plants, waste disposal, and nuclear proliferation. Hillary opposes new subsidies for nuclear power, but believes that we need to take additional steps to deal with the problems facing nuclear power. She would strengthen the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and direct it to improve safety and security at nuclear power plants; terminate work at the flawed Yucca Mountain site and convene a panel of scientific experts to explore alternatives for disposing of nuclear waste; and continue research, with a focus on lower costs and improving safety.
For other Clinton items from our archives, click here.

UPDATE: Some reactions here and here.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More here.

Comments

bryfry said…
Ah ... so she would take us back in time to ... well ... the 90's.

It's interesting to see that her plan for nuclear energy so closely resembles her husband's: that is, it's a plan to do nothing. At least the Clintons are a consistent pair.

So much for being "agnostic."
Anonymous said…
A vote FOR a Democrat is a vote AGAINST nuclear power.

If Clinton gets in office, then there will be NO new nukes, and it's unlikely that IPEC or VY will conitune to operate.

I've told you this before: don't ingratiate yourselves before these people. Simply defeat them in 2008.
Sovietologist said…
I've written a post on my blog with my admittedly contrarian analysis of Sen. Clinton's position on nuclear power. Long story short, I think she's far more reasonable than she appears.
Anonymous said…
In other words, making vague promises to nuclear supporters while appeasing the anti nuclear fring by throttling any real progress. If others don't I still remember what another Clinton did in the 90's concerning nuclear developement.
d kosloff said…
Somebody should tell Hillary's advisors about the Swedish experience with their "30-year phase out" of nuclear power.
robert merkel said…
Anonymous:

With respect, you're being unrealistic. A strategy for the nuclear industry that relies on keeping Democrats out of office forever won't work any better any more than a plan to introduce (to pick an example of an issue that the American left would dearly love to see happen) single-payer healthcare that relies on keeping Republicans out of office forever.

From what I can tell, at this point in time Senator Clinton is more likely than any other person to be the next President of the United States. Furthermore, there's not much you, or anyone that reads this blog can do about it; the number of people motivated to vote, donate, or or mobilise on nuclear energy, is tiny.

As Sovietologist points out, Hillary's left herself all manner of wiggle room on nuclear power. That's a world away from, say, John Edwards. And it's simply not true that left-of-center governments won't ever support nuclear; Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have fought their party's base tooth and nail to get new nuclear power on the agenda in Britain.

Anyway there's a choice; work with Democrats as best you can (who aren't monolithic on the issue), or don't work with them and get frozen out of the debate entirely.
Anonymous said…
Told ya. Hillary! is anti-nuke at heart. Any intimations to the contrary are just pandering.

What did the Clintons do for (to?) nuclear power in the '90s? How about canceling the IFR at Idaho? Their bag-man Bill Richardson killed the HFBR at Brookhaven Lab. Clinton's first speech to Congress noted that the government wasn't going to be doing some things anymore, "like nuclear power development". Yep, they sure did a lot.
Anonymous said…
Robert Merkel,

I respect your opinion, but I'll never vote Democrat anyways, nor will I ingratiate myself with liberals. It is also unlikely I'll vote Republican in the upcoming election, especially if Rudy wins the Republican primaries. There are moral issues that trump nuclear power, although I still won't vote for any candidate who is anti-nuke. I probably will vote Constitution Party - they are closest to how I feel politically. Sadly, their candidate won't get elected, but it's my vote and it won't go to either Rudy or Hillary, even though Rudy is pro-nuclear. As I said, there other other issues (moral in nature) that require this course of action.
Ian said…
Anonymous, if it's what you believe, sign it with your name.

Popular posts from this blog

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…